Data includes total votes submitted by visitors since Mar 5, 2013. For users that answer more than once (yes we know), only their most recent answer is counted in the total results. Total percentages may not add up to exactly 100% as we allow users to submit "grey area" stances that may not be categorized into yes/no stances.

Data based on 30-day moving average to reduce daily variance from traffic sources. Totals may not add up to exactly 100% as we allow users to submit "grey area" stances that may not be categorized into yes/no stances.

Learn more about Drones

More stances on this issue

Any military Drones flying over other countries needs to be approved by both the House and Senate Armed Services Committee including killing suspected terrorists. 2yr ago from a Republican in Turlock, CA.

Yes, with proper oversight and precautions in place to minimize targeting of civilians. 2yr ago from a Democrat in Sunnyvale, CA.

This is the "Future Way to Fight" when enemies bury themselves in the better defended foot hills/mountains/passes and our US troops can stay a little safer than adavancing into these areas-YES DO IT as best you can as War isn't a fair/friendly thing for civilians --never was-- never will be as in all prior Wars since caveman threw rocks logs etc. Mankind hasn't evolved sorry!. 2yr ago from a Libertarian in Florissant, MO.

Yes to intelligence. Yes to kill suspects only with very Gough certainty of identity and guilt and minimal flames of collateral damage (property and life). 2yr ago from a Democrat in Chicago, IL.

I believe that it would greatly depend on the circumstance and our relationship with the nation in question. If we have diplomatic relations with the nation, Congress should require it's consent to conduct bombings which can be seen as a declaration of war. 2yr ago from a Green in Mabelvale, AR.

If regulations are in place to minimize or eradicate war profiteering, I would support the use of Drones. 2yr ago from a Democrat in Potwin, KS.

Yes, but only in the wake of an attack on the USA and only until the future threat of such an attack is eliminated or neutralized. The President as Commander-in-Chief should have complete authority to direct the nation's response to an attack for up to 60 days, after which Congress must either grant approval for the country's military response or deny approval. The failure of Congress to decide on any further action shall automatically grant the President complete authority to carry on any conflict for another six months. Congress should be mandated by law to review any military conflict every six months and either approve, disapprove, or remain silent about the conflict. 2yr ago from a Democrat in Aiea, HI.

Yes, but only with the approval of the UN Security Council and/or regional organizations like NATO or the African Union that request/sanction the strike. 2yr ago from a Democrat in Garden City, MI.

Yes but it should have a more complex authorization process and better intelligence gathering. 2yr ago from a Libertarian in Newport News, VA.

Yes, but with far more oversight, accountability, and clearer standards for use. The practice should also stop until the administration answers for the killing of certain civilians and the mistaken bombings. 2yr ago from a Green in Grand Forks, ND.

Yes, but only when the U.S. can provide public FACUTAL evidence to the judicial system or general public that doing so keeps the general public safe. They should not be used to protect private sector interest. 2yr ago from a Democrat in Chicago, IL.

Yes, but each specific case must be decided by Congress. 2yr ago from a Republican in Troy, NY.

Yes, if they have permission from the countries, because we don't want to start anything with anyone. 2yr ago from a Republican in Oconomowoc, WI.

Yes it is our business to know what goes on that may or may not threaten our country but we should not just set a drone above enemy airspace to look for knowledge. That said, If we have reason to belive in troubles from the other countries then we should by all means take proper steps to eradicating the threat appropriately. 2yr ago from a Republican in Clarksville, TN.

We do not have the right without the congressional declaration of war, nor should we be killing terrorists without this declaration and a assessment of guilt and assessment of possible detention and/or rehab without killing. 2yr ago from a Republican in West Fargo, ND.

I support more oversight over this use of Drones. 2yr ago from a Democrat in Brookline, MA.

No, drone use causes far more collateral damage than intended by killing innocent civilians, along with inspiring fear and spite from other countries such as Pakistan. The US should abolish all investment into Drones. 2yr ago from a Libertarian in El Macero, CA.

No, the current drone policy creates more opposition to the U.S. than it eliminates. 2yr ago from a Democrat in Brunswick, ME.

With the permission of the foreign country and only for intelligence purposes. 2yr ago from a Democrat in Denver, CO.

Only in the case of imminent danger against the homeland should lethal force be made. 2yr ago from a Green in Tracy, CA.

Drones should be illegal; they are cheap technology. They can be used against us as easily as we use it against them. They can be used to poison reservoirs, spread poisonous gas, etc. 2yr ago from a Democrat in Seattle, WA.

I would need more information about this subject to make a decision . 2yr ago from a Republican in Worland, WY.

Yes to combat terrorism, but there needs to be complete transparency in their motives and reasoning. Also must be done with the permission of the country infiltrated. 2yr ago from a Democrat in Fort Sill, OK.

The problem is not the weapon but the targeting. "Signature Strikes" should not be allowed and better intelligence needs to be used in targeting decisions. 2yr ago from a Democrat in Washington, DC.

The problem with drone strikes is, while they save soldiers' lives, they claim innocents because of cowards who hide behind civilians. We need to better understand that, when it comes to terrorist groups like al-Qaeda, we are dealing with people who place little (in some cases no) value on human life and work to protect civilians accordingly. 2yr ago from a Democrat in Fort Erie, NY.

No, only to gather intelligence, but only with permission from the country in question. 2yr ago from a Green in Tucson, AZ.

At times. We need to weigh all options and consider all costs and benefits including how it will affect our geopolitical situation with the countries involved. 2yr ago from a Democrat in Nashville, TN.

Yes, but we also need to go back to Cold-War style assassinations. Terrorists need to die, but not their neighbors. 2yr ago from a Republican in Potwin, KS.

The military should fly Drones over foreign countries to gain intelligence but only act to kill known terrorists rather than those they merely suspect. 2yr ago from a Democrat in Riverdale, IL.

I believe that we should protect our country but innocence should not die in the process. 2yr ago from a Republican in Fort Erie, NY.

Yes, but measures need to be taken to prevent civilian casualties. 2yr ago from a Democrat in Fernley, NV.

Only in matters or national security or when asked by the UN. Using for military purposes should be done only when supported by the UN. 2yr ago from a Green in Los Altos, CA.

Stop being the world police and worry about ourselves. 2yr ago from a Republican in Coyote, CA.

I feel like if other countries found out we are doing that, that it would further impede progress of favor in other countries or even incite a war of sorts because they would probably do the same thing. 2yr ago from a Democrat in Smyrna, GA.

Depends on the country. Many countries lack an effective or real government, so there is no one to work with. If the government is working with terrorists (Pakistan?) then we have to reserve our right to pursue them as necessary. However, in the real world, we have to win the "propaganda" war with real relationships. That's not so "macho", but the world is people and reality is what the people think it is. 2yr ago from a Green in Miami, FL.

There are no terrorists and we don't have the role of being big brother. 2yr ago from a Green in Corrales, NM.

We are in uncharted territory. Drones can be an effective, and deceptive tool; indiscriminate use can cause a greater moral issue than did the nuclear issue pose. We do need them for our own safety at this time. 2yr ago from a Democrat in Hastings, MI.

I don't know... I sure don't want them here... I do want our guys to have every possible way to keep them safe.. this is a tough one!. 2yr ago from a Republican in Saint Louis, MO.

Yes, with permission from countries believe in combating terrorism. Those that do not participate should receive no attention, foreign aid, or protection for diplomats. 2yr ago from a Republican in Clarkton, NC.

If we had excellent values, which guided our use of the Drones, I believe it would often save lives and promote what is good to use Drones. But instead it is most often approached through political reasoning rather than determining what is right and good through closely embracing values which are not self-focused, but rather are God focused. 2yr ago from a Republican in Los Angeles, CA.

Yes, the utilization of military assets are not subject to public opinion as the public is not privy to all the information. 2yr ago from a Democrat in Ellicott City, MD.

Drones must be well documented & killing terrorist must be monitored closely. 2yr ago from a Republican in Gainesville, TX.

I do not feel informed enough to render a valid opinion at this time. I would not oppose Drones for surveillance, but do not think they should become a routine tool at home or abroad. 2yr ago from a Democrat in Camillus, NY.

Only if no other course of action is available should killings occur, but intelligence gathering is fine. 2yr ago from a Democrat in Puyallup, WA.

The U.S. needs permission from the country in question and only gather intelligence, not to kill suspected terrorists. 2yr ago from a Republican in Sargent, GA.

What about the innocent lives that are depleted because of drone mistakes. they are supposed to be safer right? and didn't our president just have some issues concerning Drones?. 2yr ago from a Libertarian in Breezewood, PA.

For Investigational purposes only.
Suspects need not be put into retirement (killed) unless if they are committing criminal acts that have been noticed and/or are a part of the world's Most Wanted list and they refuse to be arrested to the fullest. 2yr ago from a Democrat in Lynn, MA.

Only if the drone technology and procedures are improved so as to avoid hitting the wrong targets. I support killing Al Qaeda but not innocent villagers and children. 2yr ago from a Democrat in Alamogordo, NM.

Yes, with the very publicly expressed permission of the country in question. And, tie this to foreign aid; if a country is know to be harboring any terrorists, then cut off all financial aid to that country. 2yr ago from a Republican in La Crosse, WI.

National Security is a principle responsibility of the Federal Government. Killing terrorist outside the US is therefore a valid use of assets. It should have restrains like the need for Executive Order, or whatever. 2yr ago from a Republican in Lancaster, VA.